I didn't gloss over it. It took it for what it was: military protocol, which doesn't include a sort of faith-based decision making Fury does. Since Fury agreed with her point (he prioritized the Tesseract enough to handle it personally and sent her to a less important job), and would have been better off if he had heeded her actual objection to Phase II, I can't objectively view her as dumb or ineffective.

I guess it's not unreasonable to view her very valid point that it might not work as an 'objection,' but to go beyond that to "she only wanted to undermine her boss" doesn't seem reasonable to me.

How is it military protocol to question an emergency evacuation order? In a crisis situation like that, protocol requires that all hands pitch in and do their duty to facilitate the evacuation, rather than delaying the commanding officer with useless objections.

Fury's decisions weren't "faith-based" at all. He was moving personnel out of a facility that was in imminent danger of implosion, had a team working to avert said implosion and also had the presence of mind to order the removal of important materiel. All of those were very practical actions dictated by the circumstances they were facing. The entire operation was very orderly, if rushed. In ordering Hill to see to the Phase Two prototypes, Fury was ensuring that a project the WSC valued more than the Avengers wasn't destroyed with that base. Had he failed to secure the prototypes, it's a pretty sure bet that his superiors on the Council would have attacked him for it, fed the details by Hill, who was reporting on Fury's every alleged lapse in judgement.

Fury did not agree with Hill's point about the tesseract or anything else, he merely did what he would have done had she not said anything. He was marching down into the bowels of the facility, where the cube was being held, even as she followed along talking to him. Fury sent Hill off to where she could be put to use caring for the Council's toys and went to check on Selvig as he had intended.

When I referred to Hill undermining Fury, I meant far more than her wanting to await the tesseract's implosion with her thumb up her ass. In the deleted scenes, which I consider canon, it was made very clear that Hill was giving the Council negative reports on Fury and SHIELD, with special emphasis on the "freaks" he was assembling. The Council was after Fury's job and Hill was more than happy to give them ammunition to use against him. In one of the scenes she had told them that Hawkeye was compromised, making sure to emphasize that he was an assassin. A member of the council pointed out that Hill had been giving them negative reports on Fury for some time before the events of the film. It turned out that Fury had been right about everything all along, of course.

Wasn't Tony Stark the one who Nick Fury personally told not to be apart of The Avengers and SHIELD? And Maria Hill? She worked her way up and was recruited in by Nick Fury. Case closed.

Fury told Stark that he wasn't recommended for the Avengers Initiative in Iron Man 2. However, at the beginning of The Avengers, Fury sent Agent Coulson to ask Stark to join the team because of the threat from Loki and the tesseract. Coulson told Stark that they didn't want him as a consultant, but rather as Iron Man. Thereafter, Stark suited up and the rest is history.

As for Fury's relationship with Hill in the MCU, that hasn't been explained. The film never said that Fury had recruited her, nor that she had worked her way up through the ranks. For all we know, Hill may have been assigned to be Fury's second in command by the World Security Council, rather than having come from within SHIELD. Presumably we'll learn more about her history in future films.

How is it military protocol to question an emergency evacuation order? In a crisis situation like that, protocol requires that all hands pitch in and do their duty to facilitate the evacuation, rather than delaying the commanding officer with useless objections.

Fury's decisions weren't "faith-based" at all. He was moving personnel out of a facility that was in imminent danger of implosion, had a team working to avert said implosion and also had the presence of mind to order the removal of important materiel. All of those were very practical actions dictated by the circumstances they were facing. The entire operation was very orderly, if rushed. In ordering Hill to see to the Phase Two prototypes, Fury was ensuring that a project the WSC valued more than the Avengers wasn't destroyed with that base. Had he failed to secure the prototypes, it's a pretty sure bet that his superiors on the Council would have attacked him for it, fed the details by Hill, who was reporting on Fury's every alleged lapse in judgement.

Fury did not agree with Hill's point about the tesseract or anything else, he merely did what he would have done had she not said anything. He was marching down into the bowels of the facility, where the cube was being held, even as she followed along talking to him. Fury sent Hill off to where she could be put to use caring for the Council's toys and went to check on Selvig as he had intended.

When I referred to Hill undermining Fury, I meant far more than her wanting to await the tesseract's implosion with her thumb up her ass. In the deleted scenes, which I consider canon, it was made very clear that Hill was giving the Council negative reports on Fury and SHIELD, with special emphasis on the "freaks" he was assembling. The Council was after Fury's job and Hill was more than happy to give them ammunition to use against him. In one of the scenes she had told them that Hawkeye was compromised, making sure to emphasize that he was an assassin. A member of the council pointed out that Hill had been giving them negative reports on Fury for some time before the events of the film. It turned out that Fury had been right about everything all along, of course.

Military orders involve evacuating to a safe distance. Apparently Fury just picked a random number, in faith that it would work, and Hill called him on it, and said the tesseract should be the focus. Fury, as we would soon see, was on his way to focus on the tesseract. That's called agreement: regardless of who thought of it first, they had the same plan of action in mind. Your bias is causing you to block out that dialogue and imagine an inactive plan of action that Hill never suggested. Your word choice shows your bias even more sharply.

You seem to favor Fury's stance, making "sure bets" not only with no info, but that conflict with known information (Fury cussed out the WSC and defied them directly, losing Phase II in an emergency evac doesn't even chart). It worked out for him though but if you thought it worked out "of course" then we simply watched different films and can end our discussion here. I think you're confusing everything working out in Fury's favor with his point of view making any sense at the time. Avengers was a miracle, and you're trying to make Hill out to be a villain or unintelligent for not betting on them from the start. Perhaps if she knew she was in a movie where the good guys always win, I could understand that.

Fury followed his beliefs over military protocol and any other moral responsibility. Any responsible XO would have reported him.

Military orders involve evacuating to a safe distance. Apparently Fury just picked a random number, in faith that it would work, and Hill called him on it, and said the tesseract should be the focus. Fury, as we would soon see, was on his way to focus on the tesseract. That's called agreement: regardless of who thought of it first, they had the same plan of action in mind. Your bias is causing you to block out that dialogue and imagine an inactive plan of action that Hill never suggested. Your word choice shows your bias even more sharply.

Where in that scene did Fury even cite a numerical distance to which he felt the base's personnel should evacuate, much less some "random number," as you stated? He never said, "Go x number of feet/yards/miles to get clear of the blast radius." In fact, it was Agent Coulson who gave the order for personnel to evacuate, and he did so off-screen, so a distance was never specified. We don't know whether or not Selvig and the team of scientists had given an estimated safe distance or even whether a specific distance was ever given at all. You pulled that "random number" business out of the air because it never happened at all in the film.

Quote:

You seem to favor Fury's stance, making "sure bets" not only with no info, but that conflict with known information (Fury cussed out the WSC and defied them directly, losing Phase II in an emergency evac doesn't even chart). It worked out for him though but if you thought it worked out "of course" then we simply watched different films and can end our discussion here. I think you're confusing everything working out in Fury's favor with his point of view making any sense at the time. Avengers was a miracle, and you're trying to make Hill out to be a villain or unintelligent for not betting on them from the start. Perhaps if she knew she was in a movie where the good guys always win, I could understand that.

Fury followed his beliefs over military protocol and any other moral responsibility. Any responsible XO would have reported him.

Yes, Fury cursed and defied the WSC, but do you even recall when and under what circumstances he told them that they had "a stupid-ass plan"? Let me refresh your memory: It was when they told him that they planned to drop a nuclear weapon on Manhattan, an island with 8 million residents, because they lost their **** over the Chitauri invasion. The WSC panicked and committed a war crime by using weapons of mass destruction against a civilian population. The nuke wouldn't have closed the portal anyway, since it was impervious to all forms of energy, so they would have slaughtered millions of people for nothing. Had Fury not defied the Council's order to destroy Manhattan and gotten Stark to intercept the nuke, all would have been lost. So sure, Fury cursed and defied a group of wannabe war criminals who were ****ting their pants over a crisis which they had done nothing to help avert. He was thoroughly justified in doing so.

Fury's plan to recruit the various heroes into the Avenger Initiative did make sense at the time he implemented it. He stated numerous times that SHIELD had become aware of the existence of beings with super powers on Earth. Some of those individuals had already caused massive problems. Johann Schmidt, Stane, Vanko, Emil Blonsky and the Destroyer had all come and gone, leaving devastation in their wake. Conventional weapons and soldiers had proven ineffective against superpowered menaces (the military was powerless to stop Blonsky, for instance). Fury, reasoning that there were other, perhaps bigger threats still lurking, chose to assemble the individuals who had been successful in defeating the criminals/villains/enemies who had already appeared so that they could fight those potential future threats. That's not "faith-based" decision making, it's advance planning to counter a threat that had already arisen more than once.

It should also be noted that the WSC's brilliant plan to create weapons based on the Tesseract was what led Thanos to turn his attentions upon the Earth. So not only was the Phase Two research futile, it also placed humanity in incredible peril. They couldn't have known that would happen, but still, it makes Fury's plans seem all the more reasonable and even prescient. Had Fury not assembled the Avengers, Loki and his army would have overrun the Earth. That wasn't the result of luck but of planning, as the "freaks" Hill and the Council were so disdainful of saved humanity.

I vote noone. The benefit of killing any major characters to your current film will be outweighed by losing that character for the future of the Marvel Universe films. Unless you want to bring someone back from the dead and get the biggest eyeroll possible. Killing superheroes/titular characters is not clever any more (if it ever was). Now if you want to kill secondary characters that's not a problem.

Alternatively, write well and you won't need to depend on cheap tricks to create good drama!

Where in that scene did Fury even cite a numerical distance to which he felt the base's personnel should evacuate, much less some "random number," as you stated? He never said, "Go x number of feet/yards/miles to get clear of the blast radius." In fact, it was Agent Coulson who gave the order for personnel to evacuate, and he did so off-screen, so a distance was never specified. We don't know whether or not Selvig and the team of scientists had given an estimated safe distance or even whether a specific distance was ever given at all. You pulled that "random number" business out of the air because it never happened at all in the film.

Okay, then random place, or random whatever. The point was it was arbitrary. And since Coulson gave the order, what does this have to do with undermining Fury?

Quote:

Yes, Fury cursed and defied the WSC, but do you even recall when and under what circumstances he told them that they had "a stupid-ass plan"? Let me refresh your memory: It was when they told him that they planned to drop a nuclear weapon on Manhattan, an island with 8 million residents, because they lost their **** over the Chitauri invasion. The WSC panicked and committed a war crime by using weapons of mass destruction against a civilian population. The nuke wouldn't have closed the portal anyway, since it was impervious to all forms of energy, so they would have slaughtered millions of people for nothing. Had Fury not defied the Council's order to destroy Manhattan and gotten Stark to intercept the nuke, all would have been lost. So sure, Fury cursed and defied a group of wannabe war criminals who were ****ting their pants over a crisis which they had done nothing to help avert. He was thoroughly justified in doing so.

So, in short, his job was never in danger. Gotcha.

Quote:

Fury's plan to recruit the various heroes into the Avenger Initiative did make sense at the time he implemented it. He stated numerous times that SHIELD had become aware of the existence of beings with super powers on Earth. Some of those individuals had already caused massive problems. Johann Schmidt, Stane, Vanko, Emil Blonsky and the Destroyer had all come and gone, leaving devastation in their wake. Conventional weapons and soldiers had proven ineffective against superpowered menaces (the military was powerless to stop Blonsky, for instance). Fury, reasoning that there were other, perhaps bigger threats still lurking, chose to assemble the individuals who had been successful in defeating the criminals/villains/enemies who had already appeared so that they could fight those potential future threats. That's not "faith-based" decision making, it's advance planning to counter a threat that had already arisen more than once.

It should also be noted that the WSC's brilliant plan to create weapons based on the Tesseract was what led Thanos to turn his attentions upon the Earth. So not only was the Phase Two research futile, it also placed humanity in incredible peril. They couldn't have known that would happen, but still, it makes Fury's plans seem all the more reasonable and even prescient. Had Fury not assembled the Avengers, Loki and his army would have overrun the Earth. That wasn't the result of luck but of planning, as the "freaks" Hill and the Council were so disdainful of saved humanity.

Hmmm... You accuse people of being reasonable for taking into account things they couldn't have known. That's not how reason works. Prescient is the right word, but that's really just faith justified, isn't it?

You say his plan made sense? Even though Banner kills innocents whenever he Hulks out. Even though Stark is completely self destructive. Even though Cap was presumed dead until recently. Even though Thor wasn't even contacted or accessible. Even though Coulson who actually believed in heroes knew "This was never gonna work unless..." Even though each of these individuals' victories over other freaks of nature were obscene amounts of luck, even though they spent much of their time trying to kill each other, as expected based on SHIELD evaluations of them.

And when it was all said and done, when Hill, who by now understood that none of those facts mattered as they would in real life, as they would be prohibitive for any real military operation. When she asks how things will proceed his operational parameters are: "because we'll need them to..." like all of his lines, his actions are based on beliefs, not on facts. The world means to spin on. Because I believe in heroes. That's Fury over and over.

And she's satisfied. She's transformed from someone rational and pragmatic into someone who is perfectly content preparing for the next apocalypse by "just knowing" that they'll be back.

If they're going to kill off someone (other than Hawkeye) for real, yeah, Cap is the one. He's the only guy with a suitable replacement right behind him. A replacement that has a six movie contract. That's smart money.

It effectively cuts off the head of the 'avengers initiative', leaving someone to fill his very large shoes. It also immediately raises the emotional stakes for the third film where the heroes have to work against the speed bump of working with/under someone who they don't know/trust/have that relationship with.

Also if you were to throw in a macguffin shaped 'piece of information' that only Fury was privy to (ie. the whereabouts of a of something that would save the day etc.) it gives our heroes a physical obstacle to work against/for.

If you're going to kill of any of the primary four Avengers (Cap, IM, Hulk, or Thor) then it shouldn't happen until the Avengers 3. That way the studio has used up the contract of the chosen actor (each actor will have been in at least 6 films by that time), and the death of the character can come in the form of a final sacrifice that saves the world from whichever 'Ultimate evil' they happen to be fighting.

I vote for Thor but only because a future resurrection is possible with little-to-no explanation other than "because he's a god".

__________________"If you shoot, you're a killer. If you don't shoot, you have a death on your conscience. A death you could have prevented""What kind of a choice is that?""The one I make every time I pull the trigger"

I would think they have to kill one of them in Avengers 2. Or at least make them disappear.

Iron Man - too cool to kill
Hulk - becoming popular, safe for now
Thor - every movie needs a comic relief
Cap - of the main four, he is the most vulnerable. Already mentioned, he has a suitable replacement.
Black Widow - the only female superhero, so safe
Hawkeye - likely to die
Nick Fury - very likely to die
Maria Hill - her death wouldn't really matter much

Also, I think the decision will also come down to the actors. Yeah, many are still under contract, but I can see if someone starts frequently expressing snarky/ill comments (maybe they've gotten too big or just bored with the role) it might factor into the decision of getting rid of that character.

Pepper Potts if she's not already dead by Iron Man 2. That will create good reason for Stark's alcoholism to spiral out of control. Then if RBJ is finished with the role by Avengers 3 he can sacrifice himself or what not instead of putting the character through countless recasts, etc.

Maria Hill was introduced too soon to get killed off, same with Hawkeye. Nick Fury could possibly go but I don't see it.

I would think they have to kill one of them in Avengers 2. Or at least make them disappear.

Iron Man - too cool to kill
Hulk - becoming popular, safe for now
Thor - every movie needs a comic relief
Cap - of the main four, he is the most vulnerable. Already mentioned, he has a suitable replacement.Black Widow - the only female superhero, so safe
Hawkeye - likely to die
Nick Fury - very likely to die
Maria Hill - her death wouldn't really matter much

Also, I think the decision will also come down to the actors. Yeah, many are still under contract, but I can see if someone starts frequently expressing snarky/ill comments (maybe they've gotten too big or just bored with the role) it might factor into the decision of getting rid of that character.

She could easily be killed off or turned villain for a while and be replaced with any number of other great female superheros.

....Okay then...What makes you think the female members are expendable for other female members purely based on their gender?

I dont think that female characters are expendable. The post I was responding to stated that BW was "so safe" because she is the only female superhero in the avengers. I disagree. I think she could be replaced with another female character...or two. I don't think simply because she is the only female in the avengers right now, that THAT makes her safe. You know?
Also, I wasn't trying to say that if BW would get killed or replaced it would HAVE to be a female replacement. If thats what it came off like. I apologize. She could also be easily replaced with a dude. I don't see Cap, IM, Thor or Hulk really goin anywhere anytime soon. That leaves Black Widow & Hawkeye.

I dont think that female characters are expendable. The post I was responding to stated that BW was "so safe" because she is the only female superhero in the avengers. I disagree. I think she could be replaced with another female character...or two. I don't think simply because she is the only female in the avengers right now, that THAT makes her safe. You know?
Also, I wasn't trying to say that if BW would get killed or replaced it would HAVE to be a female replacement. If thats what it came off like. I apologize. She could also be easily replaced with a dude. I don't see Cap, IM, Thor or Hulk really goin anywhere anytime soon. That leaves Black Widow & Hawkeye.

Sorry I'm just use to that kind of response with Black Widow so I guess I read in to your post too much my apologies